CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Oak Farm
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from avoidable harm, risks were assessed and staff knew how to respond to safeguarding concerns. Inspectors found a medicines recording error that the audit had missed, and medicines competency observations were not as frequent as the policy required.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs and choices were assessed and reflected in care plans. Staff had relevant training, people received help with healthcare and nutrition, and decisions were made in line with the Mental Capacity Act.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, warmth, dignity and respect. Staff supported people to express their views and make choices using communication aids, advocacy and translation where needed.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's preferences and communication needs, and staff knew people well. Relatives wanted more structured and regular activities, and some wanted more involvement or communication about their family member's care.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had a person-centred culture, clear leadership and regular quality checks. The manager acted during the inspection by enrolling senior staff on further medicines training after an issue was identified.
What inspectors found, January 2023
Oak Farm rated Good; inspectors found kind, person-centred care, with improvements needed in medicines auditing and activities.
Inspectors visited on 5 December 2022 and reviewed care and medicines records, staff files, policies and quality checks. They spoke with the two people living at the home, staff, relatives and visiting professionals. This was the first inspection since the service registered.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people were safe, treated with kindness and supported by staff who understood their needs, choices, communication and cultural backgrounds.
There were some areas to improve. A medicines audit missed one recording error, and staff competency checks were not happening as often as the home's policy said. Relatives also wanted more regular activities outside the home and more involvement in some parts of their family member's care.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors observed staff treating people with kindness, warmth and respect. People said they liked living at the home and felt supported.
“Observations of staff providing care and interacting with people showed kindness, respect and warmth.” from the report
Good communication support
The home used easy-read information, pictures, photographs, translation and advocacy to help people understand information and take part in decisions.
“The provider made sure people got all the information they needed in an accessible format, to support them to make decisions about their care and support” from the report
Staff knew people's needs
Staff received induction, supervision and specialist training. They understood people's individual needs and used positive behaviour support and least restrictive approaches.
“People received care and support from staff who knew them well and understood their needs and considered their preferences.” from the report
Good healthcare support
People were supported to attend appointments and access healthcare professionals. The home used hospital passports and worked positively with other agencies.
“People had good access to physical and mental healthcare and were referred to other professionals where appropriate.” from the report
Medicines checks
needs fixingOne recording error was missed by the medicines audit. Staff competency checks were not taking place as often as the home's policy stated, so the provider was asked to review its systems.
“However, one recording error was not picked up by the current system for auditing medication.” from the report
Activities and community involvement
needs fixingRelatives said they wanted more structured and regular activities that matched people's individual needs. Inspectors recommended reviewing the range and frequency of activities and community involvement.
“Relatives commented they would like to see more structured and regular activities that met people's individual needs.” from the report
Family involvement
minorSome relatives wanted to be more involved in parts of their family member's care and to receive more communication about it.
“Two relatives spoken to requested to be more involved in or have more communication about some aspects of their family member's care.” from the report
- 01What has changed in the medicines audit since inspectors found that one recording error had been missed?
- 02How often are staff's medicines skills now checked, and does this match the home's policy?
- 03What structured activities and community outings are currently available for my relative?
- 04How will relatives be involved in care reviews and kept informed about important aspects of their family member's care?
This was the first inspection of the newly registered home and covered all five key questions, including infection prevention and control. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 January 2023 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Oak Farm
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- January 2023Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2021
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 11 February 2021.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
90 live-in carers within about an hour of Sheffield
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £1,020 to £1,270 a week. 76 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“Beatrice was a talent dementia carer whose professionalism and dedication allowed mums wishes to remain in her own her come true.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.